Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jbouris AHP F May 2013 3rd Conference CFragos R
Jbouris AHP F May 2013 3rd Conference CFragos R
ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ
-Σελ 1-
Developing an Integrated Model on Distinguishing Candidates
for the Board of Trustee through A.H.P. Methodology
Abstract
The triggered question for writing this article was the recent call elections for the Board of
Trustees at the tertiary education Institutions. The candidates selection process for their
election to the Board of Trustees, responsible for the mission implementation and fiscal
policies has become complex and critical.
The selection process must be unbiased from any paternalism effects and must lead to an
improved quality of the board of Trustees.
The article has two primary goals. The first consisted of a briefly review the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (A.H.P.) which led to the second goal, an A.H.P. application in the area of
Manpower Selection and Performance Measurement. The Analytical Hierarchy Process
(A.H. P.) for the pursuits of this work, is a flexible stepwise procedure with hierarchical
structure objectives, criteria and alternatives which are leading to the selection of the most
effective and efficient strategy in the lieu of cost-benefit analysis.
The two goals imply that Human Resource Decisions based on A.H.P. have significant
human consequences and should embrace a moral balance between equity and effectiveness.
-Σελ 2-
1. Introduction
In applied the AHP model in human resource evaluation process, we have divided the
procedure in the following six steps:
1. Defining Objective
2. Developing the hierarchy structure in criteria, sub-criteria, alternatives germane to
the selection of the Vice President.
3. Making a pair wise comparison of elements ( e.g. criteria, alternatives)
4. Identifying the relative importance of each element of the hierarchy, by calculating
weights and consistency ratio
5. Evaluating alternatives
6. Ranking alternatives with respect to Goal
-Σελ 3-
3. The procedure
3.1. Defining Objective and developing the hierarchy structure in criteria, sub-criteria,
alternatives germane to the selection of the Vice President
-Σελ 4-
PERSONAL PROFILE = fi ( KNOW-HOW, PROBLEM SOLVING. ACCOUNTABILITY)
-Σελ 5-
3.2. Making a pair wise comparison of elements ( e.g. criteria, alternatives)
3.2.1. Utilizing the Saaty Scale, to describe the preference between model elements ( e.g.
between two criteria and between two alternatives
Intensity of
Definition Explanation
Importance
The evidence against one (i) over the other (j)
9-1 Absolutely more important
is of the highest possible validity.
Experience and judgment very strongly
7-1 Very much less important against one (i) over the other (j) . Its
importance is demonstrated in practice.
Experience and judgment strongly against
5-1 Much less important
one (i) over the other (j) .
Candidate i has weak importance over j
3-1 Somewhat less important
Candidate i is equally considerable as j
1 Equal importance
Experience and judgment slightly favor one over
3 Somewhat more important
the other.
Experience and judgment strongly favor one over
5 Much more important
the other.
Experience and judgement very strongly favor
7 Very much more important one over the other. Its importance is demonstrated
in practice.
The evidence favoring one over the other is of the
9 Absolutely more important.
highest possible validity.
2,4,6,8 or
Intermediate values When compromise is needed
2-1,4-1,6-1,8-1
-Σελ 6-
3.2.2. Input generic questionnaire for pair wise comparisons
3.2.2.1. Input questionnaire for alternatives pair wise comparisons with respect to criteria
Priority:
To: TS T&D HR
From::
1 3 4
TS
1/3 1 2
T&D
¼ ½ 1
HR
Priority:
To: TS T&D HR
From::
1 1/2 3
TS
2 1 8
T&D
1/3 1/8 1
HR
-Σελ 7-
Table 5 :Comparing the relative importance
of alternatives ( e.g. candidates) with respect to
criterion #3 ( administrative abilities)
Priority:
To: TS T&D HR
From::
1 1/5 1/8
TS
5 1 1/3
T&D
8 3 1
HR
3.2.2.2. Input questionnaire for criteria pair wise comparisons with respect to Goal
Priority: PP BQ AA
To:
From::
pp 1 1/3 1/4
BQ 3 1 1/2
AA 4 2 1
-Σελ 8-
3.3. Output :
i. Criteria weights (wi) and their relative significances with respect to Goal
Table 7 : Eigen values of criteria ( Wi) with respect to Goal : Vice President
Priority: PP BQ AA
To:
From::
pp 1,000 0,333 0,250
BQ 3,000 1,000 0,500
AA 4,000 2,000 1,000
Total 8,000 3,333 1,750
-Σελ 9-
ii. Alternatives evaluations (wi) and their relative significances with respect to each criterion
discretely
Table 8 : Eigen values of alternatives (eg candidates) with respect to criterion #1: PP
Priority:
TS T&D HR
To:
From::
TS 1,000 3,000 4,000
T&D 0,333 1,000 2,000
HR 0,250 0,500 1,000
Total 1,583 4,500 7,00
wi
Eigen values of alternatives with respect to criterion #1
TS T&D HR
TS 0,632 0,667 0,571 0,623
T&D 0,211 0,222 0,286 0,239
HR 0,158 0,111 0,143 0,137
Inconsistency=0,02
Table 9 : Eigen values of alternatives (eg candidates) with respect to criterion #2: BQ
Priority:
TS T&D HR
To:
From::
TS 1,000 0,500 3,000
T&D 2,000 1,000 8,000
HR 0,333 0,125 1,000
Total 3,333 1,625 12,000
Inconsistency=0,00877
-Σελ 10-
Table 10 : Eigen values of alternatives (eg candidates) with respect to criterion #3: AA
Priority:
TS T&D HR
To:
From::
TS 1,000 0,200 0,125
T&D 5,000 1,000 0,333
HR 8,000 3,000 1,000
Total 14,00 4,200 1,458
Cross-tab:
TS T&D HR
Alts:
Criteria::
PP 0,623 0,239 0,137
BQ 0,286 0,627 0,087
AA 0,068 0,275 0,657
-Σελ 11-
CANDIDATES RANKING WITH RESPECT TO GOAL : VICE PRESIDENT SELECTION
HR
T&D
TS
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-Σελ 12-
-Σελ 13-
5. Conclusions
In this study, we have sought to identify the most appropriate competitive strategy for
selecting among alternatives the most appropriate candidate for the position of vice
president.
By harnessing the AHP (multi criterion decision making) technique that combines both
qualitative and quantitative information, we proposed a hierarchical model for
competitive-strategy selection.
The model consists of one goal, three alternatives, and a hierarchy of two tiers criteria.
More specifically the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been utilized in the Human
Resource field, to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into
hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for
each criterion and determining an overall ranking the alternatives.
The procedure we followed, it consists of three steps: a) Developing the hierarchy of
attributes germane to the selection of the IT vendor. b) Identifying the relative
importance of the attributes. and c) Scoring the alternatives’ relative performance on
each element of the hierarchy.
With the help of interactions through pair wise comparisons between criteria under each
alternative (candidate), the data reflects the reality in a better way.
The results of this study have also revealed one significant point : the AHP model we
utilized in the study is a "quasi self assessment" process.
Its effectiveness on the decision making issues is so high quality in evaluating and
selecting candidates, as it is high the Board of Directors’ "Gnothi Seauton (Greek) -
Know thyself " towards organization endogenous problems.
Future studies can incorporate more criteria and competitive strategies to expand and
refine the model. In addition, future studies can utilize the Analytical Network Process
(ANP)-model as it applies to “matching” candidates to job positions described in the
organization chart.
-Σελ 14-
Bibliographic Reference
Bouyssou, D., (1999) ‘Using DEA as a tool for MCDM’, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
vol 50, pp 974-978
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. et al. (1994) DEA: Theory, methodology and application , Kluwer Academic
publishers Nowell,MA
Egerwu,O.G., (1992) A total systems approach to R&D project evaluation, selection, and resource allocation
using the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments, The University of Nebraska-
Lincoln.
Korsakiene, R., (2004) ‘Determining competitive advantage: the analytic hierarchy process’, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 5(4): 205–215.
Saaty,T.L.,(1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process., Pittsburgh,
PA: RWS Publications
Saaty,T.L.,(1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,New York
Saaty,T.L.,(1982a) Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a
Complex World , Lifetime Learning Publications,Atlanta Georgia
Saaty,T.L. & Ramanujam, V.,(1983) "An Objective Approach to Faculty promotion & Tenure by A.H.P."
Research in Higher Education , Vol. 18,No 3 pp 311-331
Saaty,T.L.,(1994) "How to make a decision: the analytical hierarchy process"
Interfaces, vol. 24, No. 6 pp19-43.
Saaty, T.L.,(2005) Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits,
Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. L.,(2006) ‘Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes’,
European Journal of Operational Research, 168: 557–570
For the purpose of the article we have utilized the Expert Choice Software: Decision Support Software :
http:// expertchoice.com ( version. Expert Choice 11.1.3238)
-Σελ 15-